Quote Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Reb View Post
I'm always amazed by the so called 'reasoning' of the libtard. The implication above being, "well, golly gee, since you can't always see the treat coming then it's really just a big fat waste of time to be armed". That so called'reasoning' is patently absurd and another example of the liberal tactic of using the straw man argument when they can't logically counter during a debate.

"Arguing with a liberal is like playing chess with a pigeon: they'll knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and then declare victory." --- unknown

I have personal experience with not seeing the threat coming but because I was armed with a gun I was able to neutralize the perp before he neutralized me. Your so called 'reasoning' is naive and doesnt' pass the smell test. If you personally don't want to arm yourself then, fine, risk being a victim but don't question or try to deny others their natural right to bear arms and defend themselves.

And, yes, it is better to be armed than to become a rape/murder victim, or any other kind of victim. Always.

You insist on misinterpreting everything I say so that you can justify your hatred. Fine. I never said that she shouldn't have had a gun, or that she wouldn't have been able to use it to protect herself. What I said is that I don't know whether it would have helped this woman or not, but that neither did the representative in question. I am admitting my ignorance about guns. I've never claimed to know anything about guns, which is one of many reasons I don't take an anti-gun stand (the 2nd Amendment being the main reason).